Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Sunday 29 January 2006 04:56 am, Stefan Tiedje wrote:
> Sorry for coming late to this topic, I couldn't catch up my mail for a
> while...
>
> Mia Garlick wrote:
> > However, we have attempted  to craft these guidelines to resolve some of
> > the more common and  pressing questions about what is and what is not a
> > noncommercial use  in the CC world.
> >
> > Please note - these guidelines are not set in stone; they are a draft
> > subject to debate, discussion and refinement by all those who adopt  CC
> > licenses and use CC licensed content, ie. you. Let us know what  you
> > think.
>
> As examples it is helpful in general, but I would like the most
> important point to be pointed out more clearly:
>
> There is no waterproof way to find out what the copyright holder
> intended to prevent unless you ask her if you are in doubt!
>
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > Would it be possible, when this is all finished shaking out, to include
> > some (all) of this in the license itslef to that those choosing NC will
> > be bound to that interpretation?
>
> I hope not! 

Well, I hope so.

> The nc license does not cover the commercial use. But 
> anybody could point to that document regarding what commercial use could
> include or exclude.
> The draft is very much aimed at the U.S. (For Germany it would look
> different)

Well, let the wording be ironed out and agreed on by CC around the world.

> I would encourage any nc user to explain by simple words what kind of
> use is allowed and what the copyright holder thinks is a violation.

It should not be about "what the copyright holder thinks." If it should be 
about that, let the copyright holder make their own license and have it 
inclcude exactly what they think in their own license. If it comes down to 
what each copyright holder thinks, we are gonna get no "network" effects.

> Either by just taking that draft or modifying it or writing an own one.
> But always just ask if you are in doubt! Because thats I think anyway
> the main point in choosing nc.
>
> There is no such thing as waterproof clarity with this kind of license
> and I think this is good and should remain so!
> Security is an illusion anyway... ;-)
>
> In the end its better to make a deal with a human than with a license ;-)

To my ming, one of the whole points of standardized licenses is to remove the 
friction and expense and delay of having to deal with humans at every turn. 
Plus, you assume that the human is still alive and can be found. On top of 
that, you assume there is only one human to consult. After a few years, there 
may be a hundred or more. (Except in the ND cases.)

Did you come to CC fresh, or did you come via the Free Software world?
>
> Stefan
all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145